GOUTAM DANGRIA Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI0 REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HQRS. KHADYA SADAN BARKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to appointment transport contractor by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). According to the petitioner, the contract awarded to the respondent No. 5 is illegal being contrary to law.

(2.) On 04.10.06 the respondent Corporation issued tender notice inviting tenders for appointment of transport contractors. However, same was scrapped on 03.02.07 and on the same date another tender notice was issued inviting tenders in two bids tendering system of technical and price bid from experienced and bonafide handling transport contractors. The tender notice was also published in the newspaper and the petitioner went to the Regional Office (Contract Section) of the respondent Corporation, Assam Region Guwahati on 12.02.07 to obtain tender form. The Regional Office of the Corporation declined to supply the tender form to the petitioner and it was intimated that the transport contractor has already been appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 12.02.07. According to the information furnished, the contract was awarded to the respondent No. 5. On demand, the petitioner was provided with a copy of the order dated 12.02.07 by which the respondent/Corporation appointed the respondent No. 5 as transport contractor Ex Tinsukia Railway Siding/ FCI, FSD Tinsukia to FCI, FSD Khansang incluing handling work at FCI, FSD Khansang on regular basis for two years.

(3.) On 13.02.07, the respondent Corporation published another notice in the newspaper notifying that the earlier tender notice dated 03.02.07 has been cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that upon such cancellation of the NIT, the respondent Corporation is required to issue fresh NIT for the purpose of awarding the works. However, without issuing any fresh tender, the respondent/Corporation has appointed the respondent No. 5 for the said work which according to the petitioner is extremely arbitrary and by way of adopting the policy of pick and choose basis. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as transport contractor without any tender process purely on the basis of the private negotiation initiated with him. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 had never submitted any tender for the work.